About this Show

U.S. Senate Debate

CA Series/Special. (2010) In Moraga, Calif., candidates Carly Fiorina (R) and Barbara Boxer (D) discuss issues. (CC)

NETWORK
FOX

DURATION
01:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN

SOURCE

TUNER

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Boxer 24, California 20, Us 15, Barbara Boxer 11, Washington 9, Ms. Fiorina 8, America 8, U.s. 7, Ktvu 7, China 6, D.c. 6, Hp 5, Carly Fiorina 5, Afghanistan 4, Iraq 3, Scott 3, Fiorina 3, Bush 2, Oakland 2, Texas 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  FOX    U.S. Senate Debate    CA  Series/Special.  (2010) In Moraga, Calif., candidates  
   Carly Fiorina (R) and Barbara Boxer (D) discuss issues. (CC)  

    September 1, 2010
    7:00 - 8:00pm PDT  

7:00pm
this election year, stay with ktvu channel 2 news for complete coverage. with a dedicated political editor to provide in-depth coverage to the issues that you care about, depend on ktvu news team for results and how the results will affect you. ktvu channel 2 news, complete bay area election coverage.
7:01pm
welcome to the campus of st. mary's college for the 2010 united states senate debate between the democratic incumbent barbara boxer and her republican challenger carly fiorina. good evening, i'm the political editor for ktvu television. let me introduce you to the journalists that will be asking the questions. senior political reporter, scott schafer is the host of the california report, and the senior political reporter for law opinion. also we'll be taking questions from ktvu viewers. please welcome barbara boxer and carly fiorina. [ cheers and applause ] thank
7:02pm
you both for joining us democrat barbara boxer is a three-term united states senator. she'd served in the senate since 1993, before that, she served in the house of representatives for 10 years. republican carly fiorina is running for elected office for the first time. her background is in business. thank you both for joining us tonight. let's get started. before tonight's debate, your campaign participated in a coin toss to see who will answer first. you won but chose for fiorina to go first. you have 90 seconds. >> please, call my carly. thank you for letting us into your homes this evening. you know, i have lived the
7:03pm
american dream. i started out like most americans do in a small business. i typed, i filed, i answered the phones for a little 9- person company about an hour from where we are tonight. my husband started out driving a tow truck for the city of pittsburgh, pennsylvania, and i am running for public office now because i, like so many of you think our country is headed in the wrong direction and think the american dream is too hard for our generation. we're worried our granddaughters won't have the same opportunities we've had. i've never run for public office before, but i think our founding fathers intended our government to be a citizens one. i have solved problems and think we need common sense and practical problem-solving ability in washington, d.c. barbara boxer has been in washington, d.c. for 28 long years. though she may say many things tonight, her track record, her
7:04pm
long track record is consistent and clear, and the results of her policies are devastating for this state. in the last 20 months alone, our unemployment rate has groan from 10.2% to 12.3%. our debt has grown on its way to $20 trillion. barbara boxer may say she's fighting for californians, but the truth is she's fighting hardest for another 6 years in washington, d.c. >> thank you. you get 90 seconds now. >> thank you very much. thanks to the sponsors and good people of california who have put their faith in me. because of that, i've been able to enact a thousand provisions for our children, the first- ever after school program. for our veterans, the first- ever comprehensive causality care center in california for our wounded warriors. we've doubled the transportation funding. that means thousands of jobs
7:05pm
and jobs are my focus. that's why i'm working to make california the hub of the new clean energy economy. that's why i'm working to make sure small business gets access to credit, and that's why i'm working to stop tax breaks to companies to ship overseas, jobs overseas, and when i talk about shipping jobs overseas i'm reminded of my opponent. when she was ceo from hewlett- packard, before she was terminated, actually, she shipped 30,000 jobs overseas of the think of it, that's the size of foster city, and through all that pain, what did she do to show sacrifice? she took $100 million. that reminds me of crete. that's what happened on wall street. bonuses at the top paying for everybody else. i want to see the words made in america again and i ask for your vote.
7:06pm
thank you. >> thank you, now to the questions. first, a few guidelines, you'll both get up to 90 seconds to answer the question, the other candidate will get 60 seconds for a rebuttable. we have lots of questions tonight. so if possible to answer a question under 90 seconds, i'm sure no one would complain. karla, you have the first question. >> let's get to the economy. you supported tax cuts for business and the wealthiest americans because they "pay for themselves by creating jobs." but you've opposed two jobs bills. one teacher jobs bill, another a small business jobs bill. how do you justify immediate help for the wealthiest americans but not for average californians listening to this debate tonight? >> first we need to start by describing what the 2001 and
7:07pm
2003 tax cuts really were. tax cuts that are going to expire in january. the vast majority of that tax relief went to middle-class americans, and in fact if those tax cuts are not extended, the average california family will pay up to $1600 more in taxes. it's also true that small business owners in particular are struggling under the weight of businesses senator boxer has voted against small business tax relief each and every time. the death tax will skyrocket to 55% on january 1. we have 88,000 farms in this great state, most of them family owned to create jobs we need to make sure in particular, our small businesses, our family- owned businesses are innovators and entrepreneurs are freed from strangling regulations and taxation. i think in the middle of a terrible recession, this is the
7:08pm
worst economic crisis since 1979, and since 1929 in this state. just think about it. we have 12 metropolitan areas with unemployment above 15%. we have 23 counties with unemployment above 15%. mean while in the last 20 months, the spending has increased 10% and 14% over the last two years. >> senator boxer you have 60 seconds to reply. >> i want to go back to the question. we have 16,500 teachers-plus get pink slips in the mail. they were not going to be in the classroom when our children was there. what's more important than our children? you know, i'm a product of public schools, 95% of our people go to public schools,
7:09pm
this was a bill that was paid for. do you know that my opponent actually called that bill where we save the teacher jobs a disgrace. she called it disgraceful. i'll tell you why i don't think she likes it, because we paid for that bill. it was ficit-neutral because we paid for it by stopping tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas. every time you really get past the surface, you see my opponent fighting for the billionaires, millionaires, for the companies who ship job overseas. she even opposes the small business legislation that gives tax breaks to small business. >> thank you, senator. >> scott, you have the next question, and it's for senator boxer. >> senator boxer, last night, president obama officially ended the u.s. combat mission in iraq. over 4400 americans died over the course of the war and tens of thousands more came home
7:10pm
with physical and mental disabilities. my question is do you think the war was worth the cost and going forward in afghanistan, what criteria will you use to say enough is enough, time to bring our troops home? >> i'm happy our troops are coming back from iraq. i was one of about 23 that did not vote for that war. i did support the troops. i voted for 85% of the spending bills we had, even though i had disagreements on that war. when i opposed those bills, it was because it wasn't good enough for our wounded warriors. i'm glad they are coming back. i think the reason we are at this point is because america finally said through our president, this is the date, we're coming home, say to the iraqis, you have to step up to the plate and defend your own nation. i believe a nation helping, not nation building. and i feel the same way in
7:11pm
afghanistan. i did vote to go after osama bin laden, george w. bush turned away from it and went into iraq. i do support the president trying to see we can train the afghan people to again defend themselves, but i do want to see more timelines drawn there. i think it's important to send that signal. this is the time frame. i'm on a fine gold bill which you can read that says give us a timetable, give us the conditions in which we can bring our troops home. i think we're on that track. i support beginning the withdrawal by 2011, but i'm happy our troops are coming home. they are the bravest, they are the greatest, and now we have to take care of them. they have some terrible injuries and wounds, i just went to that comprehensive causality care center. they are doing -- >> time is up. apparently the lights aren't
7:12pm
working. real quick follow-up before we go to your answer. >> if the president doesn't come up with a written timeline as you suggested he do, would you call him out on that as you did president bush? you were very critical of president bush. not as critical as president obama. i've stated it publicly and on the bill that requires the president to do that. i don't think this is a party of partnership partisanship. i think we can help afghanistan and iraq, but we need to rebuild our country. >> miss fiorina, your reply? >> senator boxer's last two answers are a perfect illustration of her rhetoric versus the reality. let's look at the reality of her record supporting our men and women in uniform. she voted against body armor, she voted against support for brain trauma and post-traumatic
7:13pm
brain syndrome and against extendedamily leaves for their families. the vote she cast so upset then senator joe biden. this is a political vote, nothing is worse. in that case, his son's life. as regards to the two bills she talked about earlier, the truth is the bill she supported could have been a great bill, but they threw in there the opportunity for the federal government to take equity positions and community banks. we know how well that worked out with tarp senior, didn't work well. as for the teacher's bill. we are playing political call football with tax payer money. sacramento and washington, d.c. has be fighting over who gets to spend that money, and the vast majority of teachers won't be employed until 2012 and some will go to reducing the deficit. >> you have the next question for carly fiorina. >> thank you very much. miss fiorina, every year,
7:14pm
65,000 young men and women graduate from high school in the u.s. and have a hard time furthering their education or finding a job because they were brought here illegally when they are children. they are not fault of their home. will you continue to live in this limbo and send them back to the countries they don't remember and know or consider supporting legislation that helps them in the long path of citizenship? >> i believe the 21st century is the century of brain power and invasion. we need to cultivate all the brain power we can by making sure that people are well- educated here. yes, i would support the dream act, because i do not believe we can punish children through no fault of their own are here. let me quickly say i do not support amnesty for those who have come here illegally. i believe the federal government must secure the
7:15pm
border and it has not done its job. i believe as well the government has to come up with a guest worker program that works. senator boxer has vilified the people of arizona even though the government isn't doing its job. in a critical moment in 2007 when a guest worker program was on the table, she was the deciding vote that killed the program and in essence destroyed a compromise on immigration reform. when she voted for the amendment that killed that program, her comment was that immigrants represent a cheap source of labor that threatens the american worker. you see, if you look at senator boxer's long track record of 28 years in washington, d.c., you will see this, she is for more taxes, she is for more spending. she is for more regulation, and also for big government and elite extreme environmental
7:16pm
groups. >> senator? >> first, i have to say that am very proud of my record for veterans. that's why i am the bipartisan, cochair of the bipartisan military family's caucus, and i have a record which won me an award from doctors who were trying to find out better treatments for burn victims. i got the first funding for traumatic brain injury, and my husband served in the military, so i love the military in a very personal way. now, what i want to say about immigration is this. my opponent called comprehensive immigration reform a distraction. imagine, a distraction. we have 11 million people here living in the shadows and here's where we stand. under the law, since my opponent feels we shouldn't deal with this issue, they would have to be deported. we just have a recent study
7:17pm
from ufc and several other very important institutions that said the way to get this economy going again is to go with comprehensive immigration reform. the dream act is -- >> your time is up. over the past few weeks, viewers and readers have been sending in questions they'd like to hear the candidates answer. right now we're going to shift gears a bit and hear a couple of those questions. first question comes from tim tam. he's a democrat and leaves in oakland. >> senator boxer, you've been staying in the office 3 terms, why don't you let other people try? >> that question was used in an office three terms why not give other people a chance. >> i did hear it. my answer is every election is a chance. that's what america is about. and you know, i have to say
7:18pm
this, our founders decided to put the power in the hands of the people, and the people have to vote. now, i have been so fortunate. i'm a first generation american on my mother's side. my mother never graduated from high school. she had to work to support the family. i'm in the united states senate. why? because i fight for people. because i fight for the dream. but, of course, every time i run, i have a tough fight on my hands and people are going to decide if they want to have me back or if they want to elect someone who made her name as the ceo of hewlett-packard laying thousands and thousands of workers off, shipping their jobs overseas, making no sacrifice while she was doing it, taking $100 million. i don't think we need those wall street values right now. so every race i run in, there's a clear choice. there's a clear choice here on jobs, there's a clear choice on
7:19pm
the issue of off-shore oil drilling and a woman's right to choose and many other areas we'll get to tonight. >> ms. fiorina, your reply? >> i think it's a good question. senator boxer is right. ultimately the choice is 7:to voters. i think one of the things voters believe is that results count. in her 18 years in the senate, senator boxer has four bills with her name on it. that's far below the record or even the average. those four bills include naming a river in virginia, naming a courthouse, renaming a post office, and bringing some federal dollars back to the bay area after the earthquake. it is all well and good for senator boxer to continue to mischaracter rise my record. i would remind her it was she who voted for the wall street bailout. it is she who has taken many
7:20pm
contributions from wall street executives and remind her as well that when you lead a business, whether it's a 9- person business or 150,000 people, you sometimes have to make the agonizing choice to lose some jobs to save more. what enrages people in california as they see people making those tough choices absolutely every day -- is federal government employees growing at 14 and a half%. >> i'm sorry, time is up. our next viewer question is for ms. fiorina, it comes from a republican, mr. watson is a retired employee from hewlett- packard and has a question regarding the outsourcing of jobs at hp. let's listen. >> carly, you sent thousands of jobs offshore. you coined the phrase right shoring. also in a keynote speech in 2004, you said there is no job
7:21pm
that is america's god-give right anymore. do you still feel that way? what are your plans to create jobs in california? >> this is the 21st century. any job can go anywhere. what worries me deeply is the jobs we lose now may not come back. so we have to fight for every job. the truth is that california has higher than average unemployment rate because we are destroying jobs. texas is fighting harder for our jobs, north carolina is, mexico, brazil, guatemala, china, india, russia, poland. i know precisely why those jobs go. i'll tell you why. because china, for example, like texas, like brazil, gives companies huge tax credits, they help them cut through regulation. they reward r and d, they provide access to credit.
7:22pm
that's what we need to do. i proposed a two-year payroll tax holiday for a business that hires an unemployed worker. to use the power of the federal government to create special economic zones just as the chinese have to help companies cut through regulation. instead of bailing out general motors, let's bring them the incentives to bring their plants back home and hire american workers and let us decide in this country we are going to be once again number one in invasion. we have fallen to 17th in the world. we have to fight for invasion, that means we have to be number one in the world in terms of incentives we provide. we can grow our economy again, but it means we have to fight for private sector jobs and i don't think there are enough people in washington who understand why private sector jobs are created. >> you've in the past said school teachers should have their pay connected to their
7:23pm
performance. school scores down, they should face the consequences. when you were at hp and the board of directors forced you to resign in part because of the stock market dropping with regard to hp, you got a severance of $21 million. shouldn't ceos have the same as school teachers? >> absolutely they should. during my time at hewlett- packard, i ripped up my employment contract and put my pay up for share holder vote. every dollar i earned was voted on and was tied specifically to performance. just to review, in the 6 years i managed hewlett-packard during the worst technology recession in 25 years, we doubled the size of the company, tripled the rate of invasion, win and our stock outperformed the pure index by
7:24pm
23%. >> senator, your reply? >> yes, i think we're entitled to our opinion, but not entitled to our facts. the facts are there was a $21 million severance check. my understanding is it was taken after my opponent was fired. the stock went down more than 50%. if she's calling for accountability with teachers, there ought to be accountability with ceos. i think it's really simple, but i think the viewer who asked the question hit on something important. i think it is this. if ever we needed a united states senator from california to fight for american jobs, it's now. my opponent, we know she shipped jobs overseas, thousands of them. we know she fired workers, tens of thousands of them, but we also know she has opposed every jobs bill we've voted on. the hire act which gave the tax holiday to business people if
7:25pm
they hired an unemployed person, so she opposed that. she opposed the teachers bringing back 16,500 teachers into the classroom. she opposed wall street reform. >> sorry, senator. get to the next question. from karla. >> sorry. >> senator, many of our readers at sfgate.com asked us to ask you this. it regards often repeated clips on the internet in which you tied michael walsh, he appeared before you in committee, addressed you as ma'am and you told him you should be called senator because you worked hard for that title. a lot of readers thought it showed you got out of touch, high-handed. why did you make that comment and is their criticism fair? >> people absolutely have a right to criticize me for anything i do. but in that particular moment, we were having a lot of back
7:26pm
and forth. this was a formal hearing. i made the call i should call the general, general, and it would be better if he called me by my formal title. sir, ma'am, general, senator. afterwards, i called the general and said do i owe you an apology. he said no, not at all. we work very well together. we're working very well together. he's working on army corp. of engineer projects now as we speak after the bp spill. he's helping us with our flood control in sacramento. that's what that was about. >> ms. fiorina? >> well, i'm certainly pleased to hear senator boxer called the general and asked if she needed to apologize. i take him at his word if he indicated he wasn't offended. i agree with senator boxer we're not entitled to our own
7:27pm
facts. i think it's actually a shame that barbara boxer would use hewlett-packard, a treasure of california, one of the great companies in the world whose employees work hard and whose shareholders have benefited greatly from both my time at ceo and all the hard work of the employees i was privileged to lead. i think it's a shame she'd use the company as a political football. i understand she's going to mischaracter rise me, but it's a shame she would use the company in that way. let's talk about wall street reform for a second. you know, wall street crisis hit and it turns out there are 20 agencies asleep at the switch, but nevermind those 20 agencies and fannie and freddie. we're going to create a brand new agency with a bunch of new federal government bureaucrats. >> i've noticed both of you are
7:28pm
drifting off the question to answer something you'd like to answer. i understand it's frustrating, but answer the questions directly, that would be great. scott, you have a question for fiorina. >> thank you. you supported proposition 8 and say marriage should be only between one man and woman. domestic partnerships and civil unions are not recognized by the federal government. committed gay and lesbian couples are denied rights that other couples get like benefits from social security when a spouse dies. my question is this, should federal law be changed to allow for equal legal status for same- sex couples and if not, why not? >> i do believe marriage is between a man and woman but i've been consistent and clear i support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. the defensive marriage act go
7:29pm
got broad bipartisan support and it's consistent with that of our president and the vast majority of senators in the u.s. senate. i think what we now are seeing is that the voters were quite clear about their views on this, and this is now going through a legal process. whatever your views about gay marriage, i think many of us would conclude that when voters have such a clear decision, for that decision to be overturned by a single judge seems perhaps not appropriate, and so this is now the beginning of what will be a long legal process. i support very much the repeal of don't ask, don't tell and know the military is getting ready to release its report on the best way to execute that decision. >> senator boxer, your reply? >> yes, you know, we do have courts that check the
7:30pm
legislature and the legislature checks the president. that's what our constitution says. so yes, a lot of the laws that we pass may well go through that test. now, if you read ron george's decision on this, by the way, a republican who was appointed not state of california bench, he's clear. he says the only way to get equal rights, to gays and lesbians is to say there should be marriage equality. it's a very straightforward decision because as you said, the only way to get the rights that married couples have is to go for marriage equality, and i think and i'm glad to say i believe people are coming around to see it. and i also would just say in terms of what we heard about the fact i shouldn't talk about my opponent's days at hp, she's running on her record as the former ceo of hewlett-packard, so what she did there counts
7:31pm
and i'm going to keep on telling the truth about t. >> i'm going to keep watching the clock. i'm sorry time is up. >> you have the next q. >> it's for the senator. senator, in these stories in the polls, it appears voters tend to look at the california senator who can work with the other side of the aisle and you as the more partisan senator. can you think of a time you disagreed strongly with president obama about something and did something about it? >> well, yes, i actually can. first let me say i'm a cosponsor on 500 republican bills and i could give you a list of things. the after school bill was done with a republican colleague and many of the work -- a lot of work with veterans has been done with republican colleagues. with president obama, at this particular point, i do think we need an exit strategy from afghanistan. i do believe it's important. that's one clear example.
7:32pm
i also if i were him would appoint elizabeth warren to head that consumer agency that's going to be looking over credit cards because as you know, people don't read all that fine print and we need to have somebody looking over the shoulder of the banks. my opponent opposed that wall street reform. it sets up that consumer protection agency for the first time you'll be able to have someone looking out for you to make sure you don't get -- i don't want to use that word -- make sure you get treated fairly on your mortgage and credit cards. >> senator, thank you. >> i think the senator is right. we both need to run on our records. i am proud to run on my record at hewlett-packard, and i think the senator must run on her record. the truth is, her record is long on talk and short on
7:33pm
achievement. the reason it is short on achievement is because she is one of the most bitterly partisan members of the u.s. senate. that's why after 28 years in washington, d.c., she only has four relatively insignificant bills with her name on them. the truth is, her signature piece of legislation as the chairman of environment and public works, she could not shephard that to a conclusion. that bill was taken away from her and given to john kerry because it was believed he had a better chance of getting bipartisan support. i don't support her cap and trade bill. nevertheless, i think it's telling that her bitter partisanship prevented her. >> karla, you have the next question. >> ms. fiorina, you're pro life and said you would vote to
7:34pm
overturn roe v. wade if given the opportunity. would that mean you would seek to deny funding to institutions that engage in stem cell research? >> i am pro-life because of my personal experiences. my husband's mother was told to abort him. she did not. her health was threatened as a result. she lived a ripe old age of 98 and my husband is obviously the rock of my life. i recognize that not everyone agrees with me on this, and i recognize as well that the most important issue right now in this election is the creation of jobs and getting our government under control. with regard to your very specific question, i am comfortable with federal funding for adult stem cell research which shows more promise according to many scientists and i've been clear in saying if embryos were going
7:35pm
to be destroyed in any event, i have no trouble in research. it is when they are produced for the purpose of destruction that i have a great deal of difficulty and i think the judge's ruling that recently came out basically suggested we don't have clear enough guidelines about whether embryos are being produced for destruction. we know where she stands on this issue. her positions on these issues are extreme. she has said she doesn't think a baby has rights until it leaves the hospital. i think the judge has said we need clarity about these rules to ensure embryos are not being destroyed. >> real quick, i want to make sure the premise of her question was correct. you do suggest we overturn roe v. wade. >> if there were an opportunity.
7:36pm
not an issue i'm running on. by the way, reason for that, i'm a strong believer in state's rights. i think vote have to make some of these difficult decisions. i'm prepared to trust the voters judgment on offshore drilling. >> i asked about abortion. >> californians have made their decisions. >> thank you, senator, your rebuttable. >> yes, everyone has a story. i respect it. i let people decide. what the people of california have to understand is that if my opponent's views prevailed, women and doctors would be criminals. they would go to jail and women would die like that did before roe v. wade. this is not about my personal view or my opponent's. it's about the women and the families of our state and of our country. my opponent says i passed four
7:37pm
bills. she keeps saying that. first she said three, now four. the fact is, 1,000 boxer provisions have been enacted. we have a list of these and we have 100 of them up on www.barbaraboxer.com for you to see. i'm proud of those provisions. under the way she's counting bills. mccain/feingold, none of them would have gotten credit for the finance reform. i don't know whether my opponent is trying to confuse people, but the fact of the matter s the way a bill becomes a law has many, many tracks. >> i hate to be a broken record. time is up. sorry, senator. >> it's okay. >> scott, you have the next question. >> senator boxer, no question president obama inherited a terrible economy. democrats also blame a predecessor. president obama is nearing the
7:38pm
half-way point in his first term, and the unemployment rate is stuck above 9% and there's signs the economy is slowing down again. at what point should democrats stop blaming bush and start taking full responsibility for the economy? >> we're taking responsibility and we're taking action. i talked about a number of those things we have already done, making sure teachers stay in the classroom, making sure small businesses get access to credit. all we need is one republican to get that bill done when we get back. i think we'll get that one republican, then we can create 500 to one million new jobs. i feel you have to look at history, otherwise you'll repeat it. let me tell you, i served for 8 years with clinton and every budget and economic policy. we created 23 million new jobs, net, and not only did we
7:39pm
balance the budget, but we created a surplus, then 8 years with george w. bush, i did not support his priorities and budgets. we wound up with a 1.3 trillion deficit after those 8 years and the worst job creation record since heert hoover. 1million compared to 23 million. so yes, we didn't get here overnight and are not going to solve it overnight. but job by job by job we are going to solve it. there's a man in the audience, i don't want to embarrass him, jay smith, who is out there, who is working because of the economic recovery act on doyle drive. 2,000 workers working because of the economic recovery act. yes, we're taking responsibility, but people in this country and my state have to get the whole picture. >> thank you, ms. fiorina, your reply? recovery summer has become the
7:40pm
summer of despair in california. in the last 20 months, our unemployment rate has gone from 10.2% to 12.3%. i have talked with all business owners up and down this state and they are being strangled by too much cost, too much uncertainly, too ch regulation. barbara boxer is promising numbers and jobs now when she voted for that stimulus bill that has manifestly failed, she said it would bring help and hope and 400,000 jobs to this state and we now have 2.3 million people out of work, and as for fiscal discipline, why is it that she has voted 6 times against a balanced budget amendment? why is it that she has voted 6 times to increase the debt ceiling in the last 20 months alone and why is it she has voted four times against a relatively modest bipartisanned proposal to slow the rate of
7:41pm
increase in federal government spending to 1.5%? her record is crystal clear: >> time is up again. you have the next question. >> it's for ms. fiorina. your campaign put out an ad that seemed to equate global warming with the weather. you have also said that you think the global warming measure in california is a job killer and should be suspended. prop 23 would do just that. i'm not sure you have taken a position in that. what is your position in prop 23 and do you think global warming 1 clear or a problem with the weather? >> the ad you are referring to was really talking about national security and what are our priorities for national security, and i think that's a very legitimate question to be asked for senator boxer who has been campaigning since 1992 on cutting our military budget in
7:42pm
half, who believes that terrorists should be given the institutional rights of u.s. citizens. that is what that ad was about. we should always have the courage to examine the science, but all scientists agree on this, the only way to impact global warming is to act globally. a state acting alone will make no difference. what we need in this country, a priority of mind if i am fortunate enough to gain the confidence of voters of california will be a national and comprehensive energy bill, and that means that ab-32 would be superseded, it should be, it would have been by barbara boxer's cap and trade bill, but her bill was the wrong track. it was it would have cost us trillions in economic output, millions of jobs, it doesn't do enough to fund energy r and d. what we need to do is fund energy r and d, give more to
7:43pm
berkeley, livermore, and take advantage in an environmentally responsible way of every source of energy we have including nuclear, wind, solar, and we have to acknowledge that we cannot put bills in place that punish excessively energy intensive industries like farming, like manufacturing, and like small business owners. >> time is up but you didn't answer part of the question which is do you support prop 23 which would suspend ab-32? >> my focus is on a national energy policy. >> yes or no? just answer. >> i have not taken a position on it yet because i think there's no question in my mind and no question in people who have studied ab-32. that is in the short-term a job killer, but we need national energy policy. >> senator boxer? >> if you can't take a stand on
7:44pm
prop 23, i don't know what you will take a stand on. this is a crucial bill. i'll tell you the reason why. if we overturn california's clean energy policies, that's going to mean that china takes the lead away from us with solar, that germany takes the lead away with wind, but i guess my opponent is kind of used to creating jobs in china and other places. i want those jobs created here in america. i want to see the words made in america again. this is the way we're going to do it. the whole world is going green, and i know my opponent has gotten huge support from the coal companies, from big oil. they are hoping i don't make it. i am asking the people of this state who care about these issues to really take note because if my opponent gets there, california is done for in terms of its lead on clean energy. no bill i ever wrote ever
7:45pm
superseded california's clean energy laws because i honor those laws and they are creating jobs now. >> okay, now would be a good time to go back to questions from viewers. this next question is from senator boxer. it comes from an undergraduate student here at st. maries. she refers to herself as an independent. >> growing up on a small farm, one thing that's shocked me is the largest and wealthiest interests collect 74% of the farm subsidies while small family farms are unable to compete. what have you done in the u.s. senate to rectify this inequity. ? >> yes, for the first time finally in the last farm bill, working together with my colleagues, we were able to get the first recognition that our
7:46pm
specialty crops need to take a place in the farm bill. we grow 300 different products in our state, and for the first time we were able to do that. i think there are big subsidies going to ethanol, going to corn that don't make sense. i fought hard to change those, but i really think there is a change. we have in fact limited some of the subsidies and said if you're a great big giant farm, not a family farm, you're not getting the subsidies. i'll tell you something else. we want to make sure that the estate tax does not kick in for a family farm where the family continues the farming. if you're a huge farm, that's a different story and that's different. but if you're a family farm you shouldn't have to pay the estate tax. we want to encourage those farms to continue.
7:47pm
>> ms. fiorina, your reply? >> it's a lot of great words. but in the real world, actions speak louder than words. senator boxer has voted against death tax relief 18 times. her track record is very clear. while our 88,000 farms here in california, most of them family owned struggled with water, with a lag of water, senator boxer refused to lift a thinger. as chairwoman she could have put an amendment forward to wave a biological assessment, she refused. when a college put the amendment forward, she went against it. when there was an amendment on the table that would have waved the assessment, she pressured her colleagues to drop that amendment. here is the truth.
7:48pm
they need water, senator barbara boxer, the chairman of environment and public works has stood in their way and has over and over again refused to give them death tax relief. >> time is up. next viewer question, this is for you, comes from tracy, a democrat from oakland. i think it has to do with guns and airplanes, something you talked about in a primary debate. >> i read earlier you're in favor of the people on the no- fly list to have guns. that doesn't sit we with me at all. please explain. >> i know it sounds so strange, but let's talk about the no-fly list for a moment. my sister-in-law was on the no- fly list, my friend was on the no-fly list. edward kennedy was on the no-
7:49pm
fly list. people who shouldn't be on it are on it, and people who should be on it, like the christmas day bomber wasn't on it. here's the truth, we should not be taking constitutional rights away from citizens, and at the same time giving constitutional rights to terrorists, and that's exactly what barbara boxer is in favor of doing. barbara boxer agrees the vast majority of crimes committed with a gun are committed by criminals who have broken laws to violate the law. let us prosecute those laws and criminals, but not deny law- abiding citizens their constitutional rights and instead give constitutional rights to terrorists as senator boxer would like to do. >> senator, your reply? >> it's hard to know how exactly to start, but let me say this, it's shocking to me that my opponent would say if you are on that no-fly list, only a few thousand, i'm sure
7:50pm
if your sister wanted a gun, they would look and see she could have that if in fact she lived in california she'd have to go to the local sheriff. seems to me someone who authored a bill that became the law that says pilots who are trained have a right to carry a gun in the cock pit because there's so much concern by the pilots that they be able to take action, that's where you want to have a gun on the airplane, not giving it to people on the terrorist watch list. when i saw my opponent say that, i was watching it, it was in a debate. and tom campbell who she was running against in the primary, he doesn't get very excited. for the first time in my life i saw him get excited and he said oh, my goodness, and that was for him really getting excited. so i think that is so out of step. it is so out of touch, and having that kind of view in the
7:51pm
united states senate just is going to harm us and make us less safe. that's what it's going to do. >> unbelievablely we're out of time for full questions with full answers. let me ask something real quick. senator you can get a quick rebut ball. you're also for allowing the assault weapons ban to disappear. is that correct? >> i think it's chris call clear we have loads of laws, and most of the time criminals are breaking those laws, and we are curtailing citizens' lawful rights to carry guns. the say salt weapons ban is extremely arbitrary in what qualifies as an assault weapon. let me say, senator boxer, perhaps she's truly confused or perhaps trying to create rhetoric, but the no-fly list and watch list are different things. >> yes, the assault weapons ban
7:52pm
has been in place in california since the 1980s, so to go back to that dangerous yesterday makes no sense at all. it has bipartisan support, and also my colleague has worked so hard to get that assault weapon ban to be in place nationally, and i've been her strong supporter in that and hope i can go back. we want to have our streets safer. >> okay, we're now going to shift to closing statements and ms. fiorina you go first. you get two minutes. >> thank you so much for the privilege, truly to be here and have a great debate with you, senator boxer. i have traveled up and down this wonderful state and i have been struck by her beauty and by the spirit of californians. but i must say i am also struck by the anger, the frustration, and yes, even the fear. i remember meeting the
7:53pm
immigrant who built his small business from the ground up only to see it ruined with too much taxation and regulation and remember him looking at me and saying this is not the country i came to. my own government is destroying my livelihood. i remember speaking to the city councilman who talked about his struggles to keep his community together while they struggled with almost 40% unemployment, and i remember as well the woman who looked me in the eye and grasped my hand and said i have never voted before, but i am voting for you because i am afraid for my children's future. promise me this, when you get to washington, you will not forget us. we can turn our nation around. we can get it back on the right track. we can get our state on the right track. we can grow our economy. we can control government spending, but to do all these things, we must start by
7:54pm
changing the people we send to washington. i ask for your support. i ask for your vote. and i pledge to you this, i will go to the u.s. senate, and i will fight for the millions of californians who love their country, who go about their business, who pay their dues, who serve their communities. you don't ask for thrills or favors, you give a lot and expect little. you are asking for one simple thing now, that we take our government back, make it listen, and make it work. >> senator, you now get 2 minutes for a closing statement: >> thank you so much every for this opportunity. i think you've seen here, this is a very clear choice. i'm going to run through some of those choices. this election is between someone fighting for jobs day in and day out. jobs right here in america versus someone when she had the chance laid off 30,000 workers
7:55pm
and shipped jobs to china. this election is about someone working hard so that we can see the words made in america again versus someone who is proud of her time at hp when she spent made in china, made in india on her products. this is a choice, a clear choice between someone who's fighting for taxes for the middle class and small business versus someone who is fighting for the wealthy, wealthy few, the billionaires, the ceos, this is a big difference. in clean energy, one of us is fighting hard to make california the hub of the new clean energy economy and the millions of jobs that go with us, the other is being supported by big ole and big coal. this is a choice between two people who differ on a woman's
7:56pm
right to choose. i have worked my life to protect a woman's privacy and her health. my opponent would turn that woman into a criminal. this is a very clear choice between someone who has fought all her life to protect her coast and the 400,000 jobs that rely on the coast. and my opponent does not support the boxer-feinstein vow to protect the coast. this is a choice between a candidate that fought hard to end wall street control and someone who opposed that reform. i think frankly, acting just like a wall street ceo, what do i mean by that? destroying jobs for americans and taking it for yourself. >> senator, i'm sorry, time is up. >> i hope we don't go back to that. >> thank you both, senator boxer and carly fiorina. and we all apologize for not
7:57pm
getting to more questions. we would have liked to, but hopefully what we've talked about tonight will help people here and help viewers and listeners at home to make informed decisions on what they should do on election day, november 2. i would like to thank our panel and everyone here at st. mary's college. on behalf of ktvu television, san francisco chronicle and ktvu news, thank you for joining us and good night. [ cheers and applause ]
7:58pm
7:59pm